Decoupling of global emissions and economic growth confirmed

[catatomic]

According to http://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/pressreleases/2016/march/decoupling-of-global-emissions-and-economic-growth-confirmed.html ,

"Global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions (CO2) – the largest source of man-made greenhouse gas emissions – stayed flat for the second year in a row, according to analysis of preliminary data for 2015 released today [3-16] by the International Energy Agency (IEA)."

Also, "The IEA preliminary data suggest that electricity generated by renewables played a critical role, having accounted for around 90% of new electricity generation in 2015; wind alone produced more than half of new electricity generation."

Contrary to wanting to shoot myself if I don't type, it feels great to be alive!

 

[Billy_Bob]

They have decoupled because they are not linked... This means the CO2 level is not being driven by human emissions. This means its NATURAL VARIATION!

More proof that the AGW scam is just pure bullshit propaganda designed to deprive millions of their higher standard of living and economies..

Did you actually read the article before posting it? It is not saying what you think it says...

China, Japan, Germany, Great Britain are all increasing CO2 output and it remains flat... why is that?

 

[elektra]

co2 is driven by the manufacture of Windmills and Solar panels which produce almost zero energy.

One dark secret is, the iea has no data on the actual output.

 

[catatomic]

Those replies are crap.

 

[elektra]

Those replies are crap.

you reap what you sow, 90% of new energy production, that figure is a lie, without any source or links to back it up.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Those replies are crap.

NO your ability to think cognitively and basic comprehension skills are...

 

[catatomic]

... just fine.

The 90% wind power data was said to be preliminary, which I suppose means it will be released in the future. I don't know why that data isn't directly there... websites don't source all their data all the time. However this is a serious website, the International Energy Agency, so I would think carefully about saying it was making stuff up.

As for CO2 emissions from wind power, we've done this with hydroelectricity: In order the best CO2 energy sources (from the low carbon power sources link below) are:

3.5 Biomass(corn)
3.9 Solar PV (Germany)
16 Wind (E-66 turbine)
19 Solar thermal CSP(desert)
28 fossil gas in a CCGT
30 Coal
49 Hydro (medium-sized dam)
75 Nuclear (in a PWR)

Thus wind is third best. It has a source.



Wikipedia wind power:

"The environmental impact of wind power when compared to the environmental impacts of fossil fuels, is relatively minor. According to the IPCC, in assessments of the life-cycle global warming potential of energy sources, wind turbines have a median value of between 12 and 11 (gCO2eq/kWh) depending on whether off- or onshore turbines are being assessed.[170][171] Compared with other low carbon power sources, wind turbines have some of the lowest global warming potential per unit of electrical energy generated.[172]

While a wind farm may cover a large area of land, many land uses such as agriculture are compatible with it, as only small areas of turbine foundations and infrastructure are made unavailable for use.[173][174]

There are reports of bird and bat mortality at wind turbines as there are around other artificial structures. The scale of the ecological impact may[175] or may not[176] be significant, depending on specific circumstances. Prevention and mitigation of wildlife fatalities, and protection of peat bogs,[177] affect the siting and operation of wind turbines.

Wind turbines generate some noise. At a residential distance of 300 metres (980 ft) this may be around 45 dB, which is slightly louder than a refrigerator. At 1 mile (1.6 km) distance they become inaudible.[178][179] There are anecdotal reports of negative health effects from noise on people who live very close to wind turbines.[180] Peer-reviewed research has generally not supported these claims.[181][182][183]

Aesthetic aspects of wind turbines and resulting changes of the visual landscape are significant.[184] Conflicts arise especially in scenic and heritage protected landscapes."

BillyBob, maybe you should read the IEA article.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The 90% wind power data was said to be preliminary, which I suppose means it will be released in the future. I don't know why that data isn't directly there... websites don't source all their data all the time. However this is a serious website, the International Energy Agency, so I would think carefully about saying it was making stuff up.

As for CO2 emissions from wind power, we've done this with hydroelectricity:

Wikipedia wind power:

"The environmental impact of wind power when compared to the environmental impacts of fossil fuels, is relatively minor. According to the IPCC, in assessments of the life-cycle global warming potential of energy sources, wind turbines have a median value of between 12 and 11 (gCO2eq/kWh) depending on whether off- or onshore turbines are being assessed.[170][171] Compared with other low carbon power sources, wind turbines have some of the lowest global warming potential per unit of electrical energy generated.[172]

While a wind farm may cover a large area of land, many land uses such as agriculture are compatible with it, as only small areas of turbine foundations and infrastructure are made unavailable for use.[173][174]

There are reports of bird and bat mortality at wind turbines as there are around other artificial structures. The scale of the ecological impact may[175] or may not[176] be significant, depending on specific circumstances. Prevention and mitigation of wildlife fatalities, and protection of peat bogs,[177] affect the siting and operation of wind turbines.

Wind turbines generate some noise. At a residential distance of 300 metres (980 ft) this may be around 45 dB, which is slightly louder than a refrigerator. At 1 mile (1.6 km) distance they become inaudible.[178][179] There are anecdotal reports of negative health effects from noise on people who live very close to wind turbines.[180] Peer-reviewed research has generally not supported these claims.[181][182][183]

Aesthetic aspects of wind turbines and resulting changes of the visual landscape are significant.[184] Conflicts arise especially in scenic and heritage protected landscapes."

Another moron who can not separate name plate values from real output..

Name plate value is 160Mw (megawatts) This would be OK if the dam thing ran 24/7/365, but it doesn't... IT only runs at rated output 14-16% of the time and at a reduced output for another 6 -8% of the time with a true output of less than 24%. IN a wind zone 5-6 application.

Your name plate value is over rated by 4 times its real output.. Then we must burn a coal fired plant 24/7/365 to take up the slack of your crap, inefficient and unreliable source... Which leaves us with no net benefit on the CO2 front and the cost is shoved off on the coal fired plant so as to not show the real cost of your fantasies..

That is now changing and power companies are now shifting the costs of backup for these unreliable sources back onto their owners as the subsidies are removed.. 0.32 cents per KW hour is now the norm cost for these pieces of crap.. And just like the EU is finding out now they fail before thy can recoup costs to build and thousands now sit rusting all over the EU as their companies fail and go bankrupt.

Even Great Britain has now learned the lesson and have begun building coal fired plants again..

According to the American Tradition Institute, there are numerous hidden costs to wind power, including the cost of back-up power, the cost of extra transmission, and the cost of favorable tax benefits. And, the assumption of a 30-year life used in government calculations for wind power is optimistic given reports from European countries that have invested early in wind power.[vi] Including these hidden costs in calculating the cost of wind power increases its cost by a factor of 1.5 or 2, depending on the power system that is used as back-up. The Institute calculates that ratepayers are paying an extra $8.5 to $10 billion a year for wind power compared to natural gas-fired generation, and this will only grow as more capacity is added. Add to this the more than $12 billion that the American taxpayer is paying for the ‘one-year’ extension for the PTC, and one can see that the wind industry is getting a real boondoggle at the expense of taxpayers and ratepayers.

Facts, not fantasies are your worst enemy.
The Hidden Costs of Wind Power - IER

 

[Billy_Bob]

... just fine.

The 90% wind power data was said to be preliminary, which I suppose means it will be released in the future. I don't know why that data isn't directly there... websites don't source all their data all the time. However this is a serious website, the International Energy Agency, so I would think carefully about saying it was making stuff up.

As for CO2 emissions from wind power, we've done this with hydroelectricity: In order the best CO2 energy sources (from the low carbon power sources link below) are:

3.5 Biomass(corn)
3.9 Solar PV (Germany)
16 Wind (E-66 turbine)
19 Solar thermal CSP(desert)
28 fossil gas in a CCGT
30 Coal
49 Hydro (medium-sized dam)
75 Nuclear (in a PWR)

Thus wind is third best. It has a source.



Wikipedia wind power:

"The environmental impact of wind power when compared to the environmental impacts of fossil fuels, is relatively minor. According to the IPCC, in assessments of the life-cycle global warming potential of energy sources, wind turbines have a median value of between 12 and 11 (gCO2eq/kWh) depending on whether off- or onshore turbines are being assessed.[170][171] Compared with other low carbon power sources, wind turbines have some of the lowest global warming potential per unit of electrical energy generated.[172]

While a wind farm may cover a large area of land, many land uses such as agriculture are compatible with it, as only small areas of turbine foundations and infrastructure are made unavailable for use.[173][174]

There are reports of bird and bat mortality at wind turbines as there are around other artificial structures. The scale of the ecological impact may[175] or may not[176] be significant, depending on specific circumstances. Prevention and mitigation of wildlife fatalities, and protection of peat bogs,[177] affect the siting and operation of wind turbines.

Wind turbines generate some noise. At a residential distance of 300 metres (980 ft) this may be around 45 dB, which is slightly louder than a refrigerator. At 1 mile (1.6 km) distance they become inaudible.[178][179] There are anecdotal reports of negative health effects from noise on people who live very close to wind turbines.[180] Peer-reviewed research has generally not supported these claims.[181][182][183]

Aesthetic aspects of wind turbines and resulting changes of the visual landscape are significant.[184] Conflicts arise especially in scenic and heritage protected landscapes."

BillyBob, maybe you should read the IEA article.

The IEA has severely misrepresented (I prefer the term lied) about the costs to operate and the efficiency of their crap. Real studies show that your pie in the sky dream is but a fantasy..

 

[Billy_Bob]

This is just how unreliable it is...

UK Must Use Diesel Generators to Back-Up Wind Turbines - IER

 

[catatomic]

Alright I'll look at this now and if you convince me that's great, but I'm not stupid... my IQ is 134 and I have a Master's Degree in math.

 

[catatomic]

From you - “Name plate value is 160Mw (megawatts) This would be OK if the dam thing ran 24/7/365, but it doesn't... IT only runs at rated output 14-16% of the time and at a reduced output for another 6 -8% of the time with a true output of less than 24%. IN a wind zone 5-6 application.”

So you’re telling me it gets 50.88 Megawatts, assuming the rest of the time it gets no MW? Or maybe you mean 38.4 Megawatts - depending on whether “a true output of less than 24%” means for the 6-8% of the time or is just the overall value.

So what? Do you have a link that shows the two different measures being used at different times?

http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/the-hidden-costs-of-wind-power/

This looks very biased, but I’ll read it anyway.

What does its cost have to do with whether we’re putting 90% of our new energy in2015 into renewables with more than half wind power anyway? Did I ever say it would be easy or cheap? Have scientists who know all this crap not been saying that it would be cheaper to deal with this early because of the costs of climate change being far greater than the cost of more costly energy?

Anyway, I’ll post this and then look at your next post.

 

[catatomic]

The IEA is not a likely organization to lie; I would prefer you showing me where they don't account costs properly. I read the article and didn't see it, but the big question is really though whether the energy costs outweigh the costs of fighting the effects of global warming. Naturally you think only of energy costs - I think of the possible un-inhabitability of the human race down the road. So that's probably where we have our differences.

I already have seen someone with a solar powered home have to deal with weather conditions in how much he could power his home that day. I'm proud of him for owning solar. I know how wind can be as well.

 

[Old Rocks]

Solar Industry Facts and Figures

Other key takeaways:

• There are now over 22,700 MW of cumulative solar electric capacity operating in the U.S., enough to power more than 4.6 million average American homes.
• With over 135,000 installations in the first half of 2015, nearly 784,000 U.S. homes and businesses have now gone solar and a new solar project was installed every 2 minutes.
• Growth in Q2 was led by the utility-scale sector, which posted its largest quarter of the year at 729 MW, and the residential sector, which grew 70% over last year to install 473 MW and will likely surpass its 2014 total in Q3.
• Since the implementation of the ITC in 2006, the cost to install solar has dropped by more than 73%.
• While residential costs have dropped by 45% since 2010, utility-scale costs have dropped more significantly, with recent contracts at prices below $0.05/kWh.

Solar Growth Expected to Continue Through 2016

Solar, like wind, continues to grow, and continues to get more economical.

 

[catatomic]

Thanks, I needed some mercy.

 

[catatomic]

My computer's bugging out... see you all tomorrow

 

[Crick]

They have decoupled because they are not linked... This means the CO2 level is not being driven by human emissions. This means its NATURAL VARIATION!

HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAHAHaHaHahahahaaaaa

 

[Old Rocks]

October: Renewables to lead world power market growth to 2020

Renewables to lead world power market growth to 2020

As costs fall and emerging economies drive growth, IEA report sees major opportunities – but policy uncertainties remain

2 October 2015 Istanbul

Renewable energy will represent the largest single source of electricity growth over the next five years, driven by falling costs and aggressive expansion in emerging economies, the IEA said Friday in an annual market report. Pointing to the great promise renewables hold for affordably mitigating climate change and enhancing energy security, the report warns governments to reduce policy uncertainties that are acting as brakes on greater deployment.

“Renewables are poised to seize the crucial top spot in global power supply growth, but this is hardly time for complacency,” said IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol as he released the IEA’s Medium-Term Renewable Energy Market Report 2015 (MTRMR) at the G20 Energy Ministers Meeting. “Governments must remove the question marks over renewables if these technologies are to achieve their full potential, and put our energy system on a more secure, sustainable path.”

Renewable electricity additions over the next five years will top 700 gigawatts (GW) – more than twice Japan’s current installed power capacity. They will account for almost two-thirds of net additions to global power capacity – that is, the amount of new capacity that is added, minus scheduled retirements of existing power plants. Non-hydro sources such as wind and solar photovoltaic panels (solar PV) will represent nearly half of the total global power capacity increase.

Renewable energy seems to be doing just fine.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I wonder how come they only use three blades on a wind mill?

Wouldn't four be better?

 

[Crick]

I wonder how come they only use three blades on a wind mill?

Wouldn't four be better?

How about 12?

Actually, the optimum is one. Even numbers of blades lead to greater resonance reinforcements. More noise. Less efficient transfer (from wind to generator)